Accountability can be viewed both as a prevention for abuses of
power and as a corrective device once those abuses occur. Hence, higher
levels of government can intervene with lower levels when there is evidence
that corrective action is needed. This corrective dimension of
accountability tends to lead to policy approaches that are highly directive
and top-down. The implicit assumption in such approaches is that
unacceptable behavior can be eliminated only through the use of regulatory
sanctions. Depending on the nature of the violation and the remedy
sought, a theory of motivation that relies heavily on compliance
may or may not be appropriate for bringing about wanted changes.

To view the full-text for this article you must be signed-in with the appropriate membership. Please review your options below:

Sign-in

Email:

Password:

Store a cookie on my computer that will allow me to skip this sign-in in the future.

Purchase Educational Bankruptcy, Takeovers, and Reconstitution of Failing SchoolsIndividual-Resource passes allow you to purchase access to resources one resource at a time. There are no recurring fees.

$12

Become a Member

Online AccessWith this membership you receive online access to all of TCRecord's content. The introductory rate of $25 is available for a limited time.

$25

Print and Online AccessWith this membership you receive the print journal and free online access to all of TCRecord's content.

James CibulkaUniversity of KentuckyE-mail AuthorJAMES G. CIBULKA is Dean of the College of Education and Professor in the Department
of Administration and Supervision and in the Department of Educational Policy
Studies and Evaluation at the University of Kentucky.